>Bruce Momjian
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > User-selectable behaviour? OK. That's how we deal with fsync; I can
> > relate to that. That hadn't been part of my thinking because of the
> > importance I'd attached to the log files themselves, but I can go
with
> > that, if that's what was meant.
> >
> > So, if we had a parameter called Wal_archive_policy that has 3
settings:
> > None = no archiving
> > Optimistic = archive, but if for some reason log space runs out then
> > make space by dropping the oldest archive logs
> > Strict = if log space runs out, stop further write transactions from
> > committing, by whatever means, even if this takes down dbms.
> >
> > That way, we've got something akin to transaction isolation level
with
> > various levels of protection.
>
> Yep, we will definately need something like that. Basically whenever
> the logs are being archived, you have to stop the database if you
can't
> archive, no?
That certainly was my initial feeling, though I believe it is possible
to accommodate both viewpoints. I would not want to have only the
alternative viewpoint, I must confess.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs